Hi all, finally reading (most of) the Last Call drafts of WSDL 2 I have
the following editorial comments (at least I think they are editorial).
Every comment starts with the number of the relevant section.
PART 1:
2. "independent of any particular serialization" - should mention XML
1.0/1.1 as rationale
2.1.1 after "i.e. they define the [local name], [namespace name],
[children] and [attributes] properties of an element information item"
add that this is equivalent to XML Schema global element declarations.
Also might want to add the type definitions, i.e. they define the
[children] and [attributes] properties, because type definitions are
also relevant.
table 2.1 doesn't mention {type definitions}
2.8.1 {value constraint} doesn't refer to {type definitions} - it is the
only user thereof, so it probably should
2.1.1 "The target namespace URI SHOULD point to a human or..." should
probably be combined with next sentence/paragraph because they are
closely related.
2.3 faults should be moved after 2.4 operations, because it makes more
sense - operations are more important, right? Same in other listings
containing the two.
2.4.1 {safety}: 2 references to web architecture redundant
2.4.2 before bullet list the "MUST be" should be rephrased as "are"
2.4.2.1 expand the acronym AII
2.4.2.1 {rpc-signature} ... of type wsdls:QName (as defined in 2.15.4
anyURI type) - mismatch QName and 2.15.4 anyURI reference
2.4.2.1 bullet 3 uses d0, d1, bullet 2 uses u0, u1 etc.
2.7.1.1 missing fault reference components in second bullet list, fault
reference components can also have f&p, right?
2.7.1.1.1 "iso9001" *space* *comma* - drop the space
2.13.2 note about service references at the end of the section deserves
more visibility, like its own subsection on "reusing <service> type for
service references"
appendix D must be finished
appendix D: services limited to single interface - split WSDL 1.1
services into multiple WSDL 2 services
appendix D: transformed RPC style and removed encoded use - don't use
latter, transform schema for former
PART 3:
2.1: multiple cases of "??" lacking preceding closing double quote:
"xs:string??
2.2 "identifying a soap binding" (should be "THE soap binding"?)
2.6.2 should say {soap modules} is a set of SOAP Module components as
defined in 2.6.3.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Ph.D. student researcher
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
http://www.deri.org/